|
According to this editorial, the DFL endorsement of Elwyn Tinklenberg has injected some excitement into the CD-6 race. Here are the reasons the editorialist gives for that excitement:
Tinklenberg's focus on investing in basic social structures to create a sound economy resonates with people's deepest concerns: Safe and adequate roads and transit systems, fully funded education for our children, and health care for everyone. To stop the devastating loss of family homes, he would advocate a freeze on mortgage rates for responsible homeowners whose payments are about to skyrocket.
El supports a responsible timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and would work to cut the red tape in Washington and guarantee that all of our veterans have access to comprehensive and needed services. In concern for Homeland Security, he would strengthen a first line of defense by investing in police, firefighters and emergency medical workers to assure they have the resources they need and then work to greatly improve port and border security.
I've often wondered what a "responsible timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq" would look like. I suspect that it's just a focus group tested phrase that translates roughly into "I don't want to sound like a defeatist by calling for immediate withdrawal." Personally, I'd prefer leaving when we've destroyed Sadr's militias and eliminated Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs. In othe words, winning.
Based on his campaign website, Mr. Tinklenberg is an alarmist who doesn't see the world objectively. Here's what his 'On the Issues' economic webpage says:
Working American families are experiencing levels of financial anxiety not seen since the Great Depression. Wages no longer keep pace with the rising cost of living, unless you happen to be a CEO. The income gap between the wealthy and the middle class is staggering.
This is a rewrite of the 2004 script when John F. Kerry kept talking about the Bush administration being the first administration to not create any net new jobs since the Great Depression. Mr. Tinklenberg obviously softened the tone a bit but the alarmist message still sticks out. If you take Mr. Tinklenberg's rant literally, which I don't, you'd believe that the economy is in crisis. While I believe that there's some challenges ahead, I don't believe that we're in a crisis. There's nothing here that a few policy changes and a little time won't fix.
When it comes to health care, Tinklenberg is just another advocate of universal health care:
- We must put aside our political differences and move toward universal healthcare, beginning with the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover every American child.
- Universal healthcare is not just a moral issue, it's an economic necessity. American businesses both large and small are losing out in the global market due to the crushing costs of healthcare. With universal coverage we can help our businesses compete, while reining in those corporations that unfairly force their employees onto public assistance.
- A universal healthcare system will lower premiums for every American family. It will also improve care by taking the burden off overcrowded emergency rooms, while emphasizing prevention and early diagnosis.
- The laws must also be changed to allow the government to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Readers of this blog know that I've spoken out quite clearly against universal health care because it'll destroy health care. One of the things I pointed to in arguing against government-run universal health care is this study by AMSA:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
I pointed it out then and I'll repeat it now. Look at the third bullet point:
Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
Everyone better ask themselves if they want to see a slowing of new life-saving technologies, especially as a greater portion of the population moves into their health care usage years. Ask yourself if you or a family member or a coworker have benefitted from a new technology within the last 5 years. If you're being truthful, which I believe LFR readers are, I'll bet a healthy portion of you will say that you have benefitted or will benefit from a new technology.
Let's also point out the fifth bullet point:
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Only socialists think that removing profits will benefit people. I've pointed out before that removing the "profit-motive" in anything means that that activity will end. I posed this question to a businessman this winter:
Other than outlawing an activity or product, what's the best way to guarantee that a product will stop being made?
The businessman's reply was simple: "Remove the profit and the activity will stop."
In other words, El Tinklenberg is for a health care system that stops innovation in its tracks. I fail to see what's so exciting about that.
Nowhere is Mr. Tinklenberg more out of touch with Minnesotans than with immigration:
No one can deny that illegal immigration poses a major challenge, both economically and in terms of national security. Yet as Americans, it is also our job to protect the basic rights of all who work in and contribute to our great nation.
It isn't our job to "protect the basic rights of all who work in and contribute to our great nation", especially if they're here illegally. It's our job to find those here illegally, then ship them back to their country of origin.
Another important part of immigration policy is to levy stiff fines on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. To his credit, Tinklenberg says that he agrees with that, though I'm unconvinced that he'd fight for that in Washington.
In 2006, Tinklenberg touted himself as a moderate. Compared with Patty Wetterling, he was. Compared with true moderates, though, he still believes in too many socialist economic policies.
That's nothing to get excited about.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
